Going&beyond&dangerous&climate&change:& does&Paris&lock ...€¦ · The [Paris] Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change…including by: “Holding

Going  beyond  dangerous  climate  change:  does  Paris  lock  out  2°C  ?  Professors  Kevin  Anderson  &  Alice  Bows-­‐Larkin    Twi%er:  @kevinclimate    @aliceblarkin    School  of  Mechanical  Aerospace  &  Civil  Engineering  University  of  Manchester  February  2016,  Douglas,  Isle  of  Man    

Outline  

§  Global  policy  objecFve  §  Current  emissions  &  scale  of  the  challenge  §  ContrasFng  2°C  and  4°C  futures  §  Importance  of  cumulaFve  emissions  &  carbon  budgets  §  ImplicaFons  of  Paris  Agreement  §  Issues  of  equity,  technology  and  economics  §  Conclusions  

New global goal

The [Paris] Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change…including by: “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C…”

“This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities…”

Missing elements

Reference to fossil fuels and decarbonisation International aviation and shipping emissions Urgent review of pledges (won’t be reviewed until 2020) Hidden reliance in temperature estimates of need for highly speculative negative emission technologies •  Pledge outcome closer to 3.5°C than 2.7°C

Influencing the future

Decisions made now impact on future climate adaptation Higher Mitigation = Lower Adaptation

Lower Mitigation = Higher Adaptation

(There isn’t a ‘no climate change’ future)

… what about a 4°C future? (i.e. a larger carbon budget and lower rates of mitigation)

2°C is dangerous

Global impacts: 4°C +8°C

+6°C

+10-12°C

Hottest days

Global impacts: 4°C

Food crops 40% reduction in maize & wheat yields in low latitudes.

30% decrease in rice yields

There is a widespread view that 4°C is…

§  IncompaFble  with  an  organised  global  community  

§  Beyond  ‘adaptaFon’  

§  DevastaFng  to  eco-­‐systems    

§  Highly  unlikely  to  be  stable  (‘Fpping  points’)  

…  consequently  …  

4°C  should  be  avoided  at  ‘all’  costs  

So back to avoiding 2°C – how are we doing so far?

Global CO2 emission trends

Data:  Global  Carbon  Project  update,  2014,  Boden,  T.  A.,  Marland,  G.,  and  Andres,  R.  J.:  Global,  Regional,  and  NaFonal  Fossil-­‐Fuel  CO2  Emissions,  Carbon  Dioxide  InformaFon  Analysis  Center,  Oak  Ridge    

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

1750   1800   1850   1900   1950   2000  

Carbon

 dioxide

 emission

s  per  year  from  fo

ssil  fuels  &

 cem

ent    

(GtC/yr)  

Mitigation message changed little since first IPCC report in 1990

Annual emissions this year will be over 60% since first report in 1990

CO2 levels higher than 800,000 years (3x longer than humans)

Lower Mitigation = Higher Adaptation

Pre-Paris policies in line with 4°C-6°C by 2100 (Anderson & Bows, 2011; Betts et al., 2010; Rogelj et al., 2010; Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist)

Where current policy is leading… Global emissions continuing to grow exponentially

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

CO2  e

missions  (G

tCO2/yr)   Historical  

CO2    2°C  CO2    

4°C  CO2    

Global ambition

Translating global targets into national energy policy involves CO2 budgets; cumulative emissions directly relate to warming. The carbon budget available depends on:

a) our understanding of climate sensitivity b) the probability of exceeding 2°C ‘we’ are prepared to accept A lower probability of avoiding 2°C gives a higher chance of 4°C+

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

CO2  e

missions  (G

tCO2/yr)  

We  are  rapidly  ‘spending’  the  carbon  budget  that  remains  to  avoid  2°C  goal  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

CO2  e

missions  (G

tCO2/yr)  

   MiEgaEon  policies  need  to  be  

delivering  change  in  the  short-­‐term  because  emissions  accumulate  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

CO2  e

missions  (G

tCO2/yr)  

Energy  Demand  

Supply  &  Demand  

Kevin  now  to  take  us  through  the  more  detailed  implicaFons  of  the  Paris  Agreement  for  wealthy  regions      

Paris  &  the  2°C  framing  of  dangerous  climate  change  

Paris  Agreement  –  32  page  document.  Dec.  2015  

Paris  Agreement  –  Dec.  2015  

Paris  Agreement  –  An  important  diplomaKc  triumph  

… hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C

…to undertake rapid reductions in accordance with best science …on the basis of equity, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1980   1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

Carbon

 dioxide

 from

 fossil  fuel  &  cem

ent  (GtCO2yr-­‐1)  

YEAR  

GCP  new  data  

4°C to 6°C

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1980   1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

Carbon

 dioxide

 from

 fossil  fuel  &  cem

ent  (GtCO2yr-­‐1)  

YEAR  

GCP  new  data  

4°C to 6°C

Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1980   1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

Carbon

 dioxide

 from

 fossil  fuel  &  cem

ent  (GtCO2yr-­‐1)  

YEAR  

GCP  new  data  

4°C to 6°C

2°C

Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1980   1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

Carbon

 dioxide

 from

 fossil  fuel  &  cem

ent  (GtCO2yr-­‐1)  

YEAR  

GCP  new  data  

2°C Deep  Cuts  in  Energy    Demand  

Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

1980   1990   2000   2010   2020   2030   2040   2050  

Carbon

 dioxide

 from

 fossil  fuel  &  cem

ent  (GtCO2yr-­‐1)  

YEAR  

GCP  new  data  

“well below 2°C” & “pursue 1.5°C”

on the basis of equity

5  to  8  years  of  current  global  emissions    will  consume  all  the  remaining    energy-­‐carbon  budget  for  1.5°C  

 so…    

 it  is  now  too  late  for  1.5°C        

Returning to IPCC’s Carbon budgets

§  66%  chance  of  2°C  is  lost  

§  50%  chance  demands  a  war-­‐like  fooFng  on  miFgaFon  -­‐  now    

§  33%  chance  demands  miFgaFon  far  beyond  anything  discussed  in  Paris  

✗

✗

… and for 2°C ?

What’s  this  mean  for  poorer  &  richer  naFons?  

Method  

[1]  We  have  a  global  CO2  budget  for  33%  chance  of  <2°C                            (from  the  IPCC)      

[2]  EsFmate  miFgaFon  by  poorer/industrialising  naFons  (i.e.  their  CO2  budget)  

 subtract  [2]  from  [1]  =  CO2  budget  le;  for  industrial  na<ons  

Assuming  poorer  (non-­‐Annex  1)  naFons:  

1.  CollecFvely  peak  their  emissions  by  2025    2.  Then  rapidly  increase  miFgaFon  to  ~10%  p.a.  by  2035  

3.  Fully  decarbonise  their  energy  systems  by  2050  

…  then,  for  2°C,  wealthy  (e.g.  IoM)  naFons  require:  

 At  least  10%  reducEon  in  emissions  year  on  year  from  now,      

…  equivalent  to:  40%  reducFon  by    ~2018    (c.f.  1990)  

70%  ~2024  

90%  ~2030  

Decarbonise  all  energy  by  2035  

c.f.  EU’s  submission  to  Paris  40%  by  2030  

How  can  this  be  reconciled  with  ‘official’  accounts?  

“To  keep  …  to  2°C  …  the  UK  [must]  cut  emissions  by  at  least  80%  …  

the  good  news  is  that  reduc<ons  of  that  size  are  possible  without  

sacrificing  the  benefits  of  economic  growth  and  rising  prosperity.”        

UK  Commilee  on  Climate  Change  

…  two  rabbits  from  the  hat:  

       1.  NegaEve  emissions  technologies  (BECCS):      

           Grow  trees/plants          they  absorb  CO2  through  photosynthesis          burn  trees  in  powerstaKons              capture  the  CO2  from  the  chimney          ~liquefy  the  CO2  &  pump  it  underground                                      store  for  many  1000s  of  years  

                 2.  Peak  global  emissions  in  the  past      

UK governments carbon budgets

Based on The UNEP Gap Report

§  163 scenarios for 50% or better chance of 2°C; of these:

-  140 peak global CO2 in ~2010

-  23 peak in ~2020, all of which assume negative emissions

§  ¾ of the scenarios assume both time travel & negative emissions

So Paris, some Academics & Politicians …

§  rather than focus on urgent & deep mitigation now

… with challenging political & economic repercussions

§  rely on non-existent negative emission technologies

… to suck CO2 out of the air after 2050 in huge quantities

e.g. planting 1 to 3x area of India, year after year

Returning  to  2°C   …  is  it  sFll  a  viable  goal?  

Hypothesis: yes

Equity/behaviour - a small group to make radical & early reductions

Technology - demand side can deliver early & large reductions

[Growth - there are alternative measures of a good life]

… just  

EQUITY  

50%  of  global  CO2  comes  from  10%  of  the  populaFon  

Top  1%  of  US  emilers  (~3.4  million  people)  

   …  have  CO2  footprints  

2500x  higher  than  bolom  1%  globally  (~70  million)      

who  are  the  high-­‐emilers?  

§  Climate  scienFsts  

§  Tynwald  members?  

§  Anyone  who  annually  takes  a  long-­‐haul  flight  or  two  …  

2°C  mi<ga<on  is  principally  a  short-­‐term  challenge;  

 i.e.  really  now  to  2025  -­‐  so  is  mostly  about  the  few  not  the  many  

…  it  is  a  consump<on  and  not  a  popula<on  issue!  

The  brutal  logic  of  carbon  budgets  

The  example  of  aviaFon:    

Every  tonne  CO2  from  our  flying  (added  to  our  already  hi  emissions)    

Is  a  tonne  of  CO2  poorer  communiFes  cannot  emit    

…  and  in  the  short-­‐term,      

we  know  access  to  fossil  fuel  energy  links  to  their  improved  welfare  

i.e.  …  it’s  our  difficult  choice  between:  

 a)    flying  to  another  conference,  poliKcal  meeKng  or  holiday  

       or  

 b)  their  access  to  energy  for  basic  needs    

The  brutal  logic  of  carbon  budgets  

TECHNOLOGY  

§  Efficient  petrol/diesel  cars  

§  A++  refrigerators  

§  EU  &  US  ~12-­‐15%  of  emissions  

§  ~270  petrol/diesel  models  <100gCO2/km            …  at  no  price  premium  

§  2/3  of  car  travel  is  by  vehicles  8yrs  old  or  younger  

Private road transport (Cars)

-­‐      With  no  addiFonal  capital  cost  -­‐      Reduced  operaFng  cost  -­‐  IdenFcal  infrastructure  -­‐  Same  employment  &  companies  

50%  to  70%  reducEon  in  ~10yrs    

Max CO2 Standard & existing petrol/diesel cars

§  A++  refrigerator  uses  80%  less  energy  than  an  A  rated  

§  Phased  replacement  of  all  A-­‐rated  (&  below)  with  A++    

§  CO2  saving  of  ~50%+  in  10  years  

Refrigeration

A Radical Plan for 2°C – two phases

1. Deep  reducEons  in  energy  demand  from  now  to  ~2030  

       …  by  the  high  emiRers  

2.  Marshall-­‐style  build  programme  of  zero  carbon  energy  supply  

       …  with  100%  penetraKon  by  2050  

“at   every   level   the   greatest   obstacle   to  transforming   the   world   is   that   we   lack   the  clarity   and   imagina<on   to   conceive   that   it  could  be  different.”  

Robert  Unger  

and a message of hope to finish …

§  Retrofit  25000  homes          ~£0.5b  over  15yrs  or  £33m/yr          excellent  for  training  &  employment        eliminate  fuel  poverty        isolate  heaKng  costs  from  fuel  price  volaKlity  

§  Max  CO2  standard  for  all  new  cars          100gCO2/kWh  starKng  2017  &  Kghtened  at  5%  p.a.  

§  Stringent  efficiency  standards  on  electrical  equipment  

             40%  to  70%  reducEon  in  energy  demand  in  15  years  

Thoughts  on  IoM  &  2°C  –  Energy  DEMAND  

§  Major  electrificaFon  programme  (htg,  transport,  etc)  

§  Role  out  smart  grid/intelligent  metering  

§  20-­‐40  wind  turbines  =  current  IoM  electricity  consumpFon  

§  Solar  panels  on  all  SW  roofs  (~1/3  current  IoM  elec’)  

§  Indigenous  biomass/biogas  for  intermilency/base  load  

§  Hybrid  ferry  –  consider  wind-­‐assist  and/or  biofuel  

Thoughts  on  IoM  &  2°C  –  Energy  SUPPLY  

§  Progressive  metering  tariffs  

§  Stringent  energy  efficiency  &  emission  standards  

§  Moratorium  on  airport  expansion  

§  Personal  carbon  allowance  ?  

Thoughts  on  IoM  &  2°C  –  Energy  POLICY  

Thank you

University of Manchester Feb. 2016